9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. In this appeal M/s. Amar Alloys (Pvt.) Limited are challenging the demand of duty and imposition of penalty against them by the Commissioner, under the impugned order. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture non-alloy steel ingots which attracted payment of Central Excise duty on monthly basis under the compounded levy schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be given for the period of closure of the factory; no duty is payable by them as the entire duty pertains to the period the factory remained closed. Finally, he submitted that as no duty was payable by them there is no question of payment of any interest and penalty. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri Jagdish Singh, learned JDR, submitted that under the provisions of law the appellants are first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day of the each month. No doubt sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO provided for abatement of duty, if the factory remains closed for continuous period of not less than seven days abatement under rule has to be allowed by an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. It, therefore, flows from the provisions of law that the Appellants have to file an application for claiming abatement with the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that imposition of penalty is not warranted in the present matter. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellants. The learned Advocate has requested that, the direction may be given to the Commissioner to decide the abatement claim filed by them expeditiously. Accordingly, we direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
